The Pope and the West are "doomed" - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ironman · 09-18-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

CAIRO -- An al Qaeda-linked extremist group warned Pope Benedict XVI today that he and the West were "doomed," as protesters raged across the Muslim world to demand more of an apology from the pontiff for his remarks about Islam and violence.
The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al Qaeda in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum vowing to continue its holy war against the West. The authenticity of the statement could not be verified independently.
The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross," saying, "You and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose [the] head tax; then the only thing acceptable is a conversion [to Islam] or [being killed by] the sword."
Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay a head tax to safeguard their lives if conquered by Muslims. They are exempt if they convert to Islam.
In Indian-controlled Kashmir, meanwhile, shops, businesses and schools shut down in response to a strike call by the head of a hard-line Muslim separatist leader to denounce Benedict. For the third day running, people burned tires and shouted "Down with the pope."
Protests also broke out in Iraq, where angry demonstrators burned an effigy of the pope in Basra, and in Indonesia, where more than 100 people rallied in front of the heavily guarded Vatican Embassy in Jakarta, waving banners that said the "Pope is building religion on hatred."
The pope yesterday said he was "deeply sorry" about the angry reaction to his speech last week in which he cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of Islam's prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman" and referred to spreading Islam "by the sword."
Benedict said the remarks came from a text that didn't reflect his own opinion.
"I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect," he said during his weekly appearance before pilgrims in Italy.
The statement of regret -- the pope's second in two days -- helped ease some tensions.
In Turkey, where outrage against Benedict's remarks had been swift, Catholic bishops decided today that no changes were necessary in his upcoming visit in November -- his first to a Muslim country, Vatican spokesman George Marovic said.
However, State Minister Mehmet Aydin, who oversees religious affairs in Turkey, said he expected Turkish authorities to cancel the visit if Benedict does not offer a full apology.
The secretary-general of the Turkish HUKUK-DER law association submitted a request to the Justice Ministry asking that the pope be arrested upon entering Turkey.
The appeal by Fikret Karabekmez, a former legislator for the banned pro-Islamic Welfare Party, called for Benedict to be tried under several Turkish laws. A prosecutor in the ministry will evaluate the request and decide whether to open a case.
Angry reactions also persisted in other corners of the Muslim world, where many demanded more of an apology by the pope than yesterday's statement of regret.
"Muslims have all this while felt oppressed, and the statement by the pope saying he is sorry about the angry reaction is inadequate to calm the anger -- more so because he is the highest leader of the Vatican," Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said.
Morocco's King Mohammed VI sent a letter to the Vatican in which he implored Benedict to show "the same respect for Islam that you have for the other religions," Moroccan press reported. Morocco withdrew its ambassador to the Vatican over the weekend.

Way to prove a point!

So, there we go again, the old man cites a long dead emperor and all Islam world burns up instantly. I was talking with some friends over this matter and whether the Pope should've refrained to make any comments on Islam, but seriously, isn't this getting ridiculous anyway?
Should the whole world change in order to make the fundamentalists feel comfortable? Should we all refrain to express ourselves in fear of offending others?
I think the point here is not whether the Pope shoulded or not made those quotations, but that in a way, the whole world is being hostage of this fundamentalists. It's a shame that in the name of "GOD", fear and death are planted all over the world.
I, for one, know that i won't be giving away my right to think and express whatever i want (with the due respect, that is) beacuse some lunatics have arrogated themselves with the power to decide what is true and what is acceptable.

Ustwo · 09-18-2006, 10:52 AM

We don't need less comments on Islam, we need more of it. The truth shall set you free after all.

As long as we keep blaming ourselves and keeping our heads in the sand its going to get worse not better.

The really ironic thing is that it was a Byzantine emperor who said it and the Pope won't be going to turkey unless he offers an offical appology (abasement). Now I'm sure you all took enough history to see the irony.

As a side note, we all owe a debt of thanks to the Byzanties who held off the muslim invasion of Europe for centuries, long enough to regain the strength to resist the invasion after the fall of Constantinople.

ironman · 09-18-2006, 11:02 AM

Problem is not Islam, but islamic extremists. I know first hand that most muslims are peacefull, good persons, but these bastards give the whole Islam a bad name.

Ustwo · 09-18-2006, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironman

Problem is not Islam, but islamic extremists. I know first hand that most muslims are peacefull, good persons, but these bastards give the whole Islam a bad name.

History speaks otherwise. The old emperor wasn't talking out his ass when he made those comments. I think most people are peacefull, good persons, muslims included, but as a force of history, Islam has been anything but peaceful in its spread.

Superbelt · 09-18-2006, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

History speaks otherwise. The old emperor wasn't talking out his ass when he made those comments. I think most people are peacefull, good persons, muslims included, but as a force of history, Islam has been anything but peaceful in its spread.

Completely agreed.
But then, they had an excellent model to work off of in Christianity.

dc_dux · 09-18-2006, 12:37 PM

Ironman and Superbelt..I agree completely and made a similar observation in another discussion that Mojo refuted by rewriting history.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=35

Willravel · 09-18-2006, 12:39 PM

The current state of terrorism has nothing to do with Muhammed and everything to do with the desperate and extreemist responses by Middle Eastern forces to strategic socioeconomic powerplays by the US and the UK. The pope was simply repeating old world religous bigotry; he slipped and let a little hate out. It's not uncommon for religous leaders to be somewhat defensive of their religon and somewhat offended by other religons. As was stated by Superbelt, many religons have been spread through violence and even "evil", including Christianity and Islam. It's an unfortunate byproduct of people being able to wield the power of the minds of those who are devoted to faith. The thing is, singling out a religon for being violent is like singling out a single tree for being green, and that singling out is usually done by a mamber of another religon. That's called religous bigotry.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-18-2006, 01:00 PM

Rewriting history now? I didn't know that Papal records and studies by historians and the BBC the world over equated as my lowly self rewriting history.

stevo · 09-18-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The current state of terrorism has nothing to do with Muhammed and everything to do with the desperate and extreemist responses by Middle Eastern forces to strategic socioeconomic powerplays by the US and the UK. The pope was simply repeating old world religous bigotry; he slipped and let a little hate out. It's not uncommon for religous leaders to be somewhat defensive of their religon and somewhat offended by other religons. As was stated by Superbelt, many religons have been spread through violence and even "evil", including Christianity and Islam. It's an unfortunate byproduct of people being able to wield the power of the minds of those who are devoted to faith. The thing is, singling out a religon for being violent is like singling out a single tree for being green, and that singling out is usually done by a mamber of another religon. That's called religous bigotry.

Now you're making assumptions here, will. You can't speak for the dead suicide bomber, you don't know that he was desperate. you don't know anything about him. You can assume all you want, but unless you've actually spoken to someone who'se driven a bomb-laden truck into a mosque or strapped himself full of explosives packed with ball bearings, you don't know that they were really desperate or really why they do what they do. How is a sunni gunning down shiites on the streets of baghdad a strategic response to the socioeconomic powerplays by the US and UK? The gunman is still a terrorist, trying to instill terror in others. Is he desperate? I don't know, and neither do you.

By the way, the first thing muhammed did when he started his religion was create an army and start conquering. I don't think Jesus and the apostles did that. It wasn't until much later that christianity was used as a justification for war, however war and islam are bound at the hip.

Willravel · 09-18-2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Now you're making assumptions here, will. You can't speak for the dead suicide bomber, you don't know that he was desperate.

I'd call it a safe assumption. I doubt that people who are simply dissatisfied and unhappy would be willing to safrafice themselves to make a political statement like a suicide bomber.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

you don't know anything about him. You can assume all you want, but unless you've actually spoken to someone who'se driven a bomb-laden truck into a mosque or strapped himself full of explosives packed with ball bearings, you don't know that they were really desperate or really why they do what they do.

Now who's making asumptions? I happen to know a lot of people in Iraq, Palestine and now Lebanon. A lot of the information about suicide bombings I get come from their experiences and friends instead of MSNBC or a book written by a professor in Texas. I consider their take on this to be reliable and when I base my understanding on their experience I do so with confidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

How is a sunni gunning down shiites on the streets of baghdad a strategic response to the socioeconomic powerplays by the US and UK? The gunman is still a terrorist, trying to instill terror in others. Is he desperate? I don't know, and neither do you.

Why do they have weapons? The US and UK have been playing God with the ME, and while we supply Israel with everything from munitions to nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia supplies extreemists in order to counter that. They are living in violence based in bigotry, so it is to be expected that the bullets will be spread across anyone they hate. The thing is: the person you describe isn't a terrorist. Terrorists use fear as a tool, they simply are killing each other out of hate. That isn't terrorism. Suicide bombings are terrorism. Attacking areas that should be safe or that represent things like economics, religon, military power, political power etc. would be terrorism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

By the way, the first thing muhammed did when he started his religion was create an army and start conquering. I don't think Jesus and the apostles did that. It wasn't until much later that christianity was used as a justification for war, however war and islam are bound at the hip.

The first thing that Muhammed did was write the Qu'ran.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qur'an 49:13, 23:52

BEHOLD, We have created you all out of a male and a female,
and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another...
This community of yours is one single community,
since I am the Sustainer of you all: remain, then, conscious of me.

The community is one community is a preaching of peace between nations, not conquoring.

All the battles that took place during the Prophet's lifetime, under the guidance of the Qur'an and the Muhammed, have been surveyed and shown to have been waged only in self-defense or to pre-empt an imminent attack. I doubt we in the US are in any position to condemn a preemptive military action.

War and Islam are not bound at the hip any more than any other religon.

Elphaba · 09-18-2006, 01:37 PM

An affront of this magnitude by a pontiff is extremely rare, and I can't imagine why this pope would choose to make a statement such as this. His "apology" that he didn't believe the comments himself, appeased no one.
If he didn't believe it, why make the statement at all?

I believe Will is correct that some religious bigotry slipped out. I believe he will need to do more to mend the damage.

stevo · 09-18-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

All the battles that took place during the Prophet's lifetime, under the guidance of the Qur'an and the Muhammed, have been surveyed and shown to have been waged only in self-defense or to pre-empt an imminent attack. I doubt we in the US are in any position to condemn a preemptive military action.

As you know, history is written by the winner. Who won all those wars in muhammed's time? give up? muhammed and his muslim army. They won many wars for many years. Then wrote many history books.

Superbelt · 09-18-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

By the way, the first thing muhammed did when he started his religion was create an army and start conquering. I don't think Jesus and the apostles did that. It wasn't until much later that christianity was used as a justification for war, however war and islam are bound at the hip.

No. Christianity waited for a hundred + years or so and bought one that was already established.
Then they went and canibalized themselves over official doctrine.

BTW: Paul wasn't exactly a pacifist. Considering most christians put more emphasis on his writings than Jesus'....

I'll agree that a purely Jesus centered Christianity is a superior, peaceful religion. But there are hardly, any 'christians' on earth (and hardly ever were). Most are 'Paulstians' with a side order of Christ.

stevo · 09-18-2006, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

No. Christianity waited for a hundred + years or so and bought one that was already established.
Then they went and canibalized themselves over official doctrine.

BTW: Paul wasn't exactly a pacifist. Considering most christians put more emphasis on his writings than Jesus'....

good for christianity. do I care?

nope.

Seaver · 09-18-2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

The first thing that Muhammed did was write the Qu'ran.

Muhammed did not write the Qur'an. It was written about 60 years after his death. In reality the first thing he did was run off to Medina and create an army

Quote:

All the battles that took place during the Prophet's lifetime, under the guidance of the Qur'an and the Muhammed, have been surveyed and shown to have been waged only in self-defense or to pre-empt an imminent attack. I doubt we in the US are in any position to condemn a preemptive military action.

Pre-empt an imminent attack? Are you serious? The Byzantine Empire payed no attention to Islam until they started invading Egypt/Palestine/Jordan. They were busy fighting Syssanid Empire.

Come on Wil, did you actually read the make-believe history you're sprouting or are you just making it up?

Ustwo · 09-18-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

A notorious Muslim extremist told a demonstration in London yesterday that the Pope should face execution.

Anjem Choudary said those who insulted Islam would be "subject to capital punishment".

His remarks came during a protest outside Westminster Cathedral on a day that worldwide anger among Muslim hardliners towards Pope Benedict XVI appeared to deepen.

The pontiff yesterday apologised for causing offence during a lecture last week. Quoting a medieval emperor, his words were taken to mean that he called the prophet Mohammed "evil and inhuman".

He insisted he was "deeply sorry" but his humbling words did not go far enough to silence all his critics or quell the violence and anger he has triggered.

A nun was shot dead in Somalia by Islamic gunmen and churches came under attack in Palestine.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...lim/article.do

How many of your people need to be 'extreme' before its no longer just 'extremists'?

Amazing how people who were so happy to equate with religious right with a tiny handful of abortion bombers are so quick to distance the 'average' Islamist from the 'extremists', no matter how many of these people there seem to be or how many nations are already under their control.

Willravel · 09-18-2006, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

As you know, history is written by the winner. Who won all those wars in muhammed's time? give up? muhammed and his muslim army. They won many wars for many years. Then wrote many history books.

Why trust history at all then? Why trust anything written before you were born? The best we can do is try to figure out what happened. The best guess as to what happened at the genesis of Islam is what I stated above. Islam may have been introduced by aliens to a guy named Mac who lived in Australia for all we know, but I say we simply rely on what we understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Muhammed did not write the Qur'an. It was written about 60 years after his death. In reality the first thing he did was run off to Medina and create an army.

True. The first thing Muhammed did was spread the word, and that word was the words of the Qu'ran. That was waht I was meaning to say, but thank you for correcting me. Actually, that's the first thing all religous leaders do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Pre-empt an imminent attack? Are you serious? The Byzantine Empire payed no attention to Islam until they started invading Egypt/Palestine/Jordan. They were busy fighting Syssanid Empire.

Come on Wil, did you actually read the make-believe history you're sprouting or are you just making it up?

I read it in a text book and heard it from a prof. and since I don't see you disproving it I have to assume you can't.

Seaver · 09-18-2006, 03:24 PM

Ok Wil, here's what was going on in reality.

The Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire were at war for generations at this point. They fought themselves hallow basically. Lo and behold the religion of peace starts declaring war with both empires, the Sassanid crumbling first. Then the slow conquest of Anatolia followed. Neither empire delt with the Arabian Penninsula prior, only in trade. To claim it was in self defense to take down the two powerful empires in the region is ubsurd.

roachboy · 09-18-2006, 03:33 PM

geez..another fucking idiotic thread in which the entirety of islam gets painted with the same one-dimensional, uninformed brush. there is no point in even trying to have a conversation about this kind of thing if the conservatvie premises are--again--nothing more or less than racism dressed up behind a pseudo-historical figleaf ((seaver's posts aside...))
it is racism masquerading as history--which is a big part of the marketing of the "war on terror"--that perhaps explains stuff like this:

Quote:

Anti-Muslim Harassment Complaints Jump 30 Percent

By Michelle Boorstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 18, 2006; 4:20 PM

Complaints of anti-Muslim harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment registered with a national Muslim civil rights group jumped 30 percent in 2005 from the previous year, the group said today in releasing its annual report .

The 1,972 complaints made to the Council on American-Islamic Relations are the most the group has received since it began the annual reports following anti-Muslim incidents after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. The group said it actually received 2,300 reports but deemed some of them illegitimate.

The number of complaints has continually risen since 1995, but began spiking significantly in 2003, the report said. CAIR officials said the jump between 2004 and 2005 seems to be due to "a rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric fed by the Internet and also on talk radio," group spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said at a news conference. "You can't turn on the radio without hearing negative, bigoted comments about Islam."

The District and nine states, including Maryland and Virginia, accounted for 79 percent of complaints. These places also account for the highest population of Muslims, Hooper said.

The highest number of complaints fall into the "due process" category, said CAIR Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar; those include complaints such as racial profiling and unreasonable arrest or interrogation. Second are complaints of religious accommodation being denied and third are complaints of employment discrimination, according to the report.

CAIR officials pushed at the conference for law enforcement authorities to investigate complaints thoroughly. Federal officials "do a very good job," at investigating whether crimes such as arson or assault have a religious bias, but "you get more resistance at the local level."

However, the group said some post-Sept. 11 policy initiatives -- including the "infamous" Patriot Act, as the group described the law in announcing the report on its Web site -- have unfairly focused on Muslims. "Muslims take the brunt of it," Hooper said.

In an effort to combat ignorance about the faith, CAIR began offering free copies of the Koran and copies of a PBS documentary about the prophet Muhammad earlier this year after deadly rioting about the Danish cartoon controversy. The group said that 30,000 copies of the Koran and 14,500 copies of the documentary have been requested.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091800597.html

as for ratzinger--the man was an appalling reactionary when he was the ideological hatchetman for john paul 2 and he has not magically changed now that he is called benedict.
but i do like the idea that he forgot for a moment that he was pope.

Willravel · 09-18-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

The Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire were at war for generations at this point.

Totally correct as I understand it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

They fought themselves hallow basically.

Do you mean that they were fighting a holy war? I'm confused by your usage of the word hallow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Lo and behold the religion of peace starts declaring war with both empires, the Sassanid crumbling first.

The collapse of the Sassanid Empire: Khosrau the Second had led a succesful campaign against the Byzantine curing their civil war had actually served to weaken the Sassanian Empire because they didn't have the resources to wage a full scale war after their own civil war (the revolt of general Bahram Chobin). Byzantine retaliated by attacking Persia from the rear. Meinwhile, Khosrau the Second and his Khosrau the Second were acting like children, allowing suspician to rule their actions, and the Sassanid lost a great general and army. The Byzantine military won the battle of Nineveh, coupled with the assasination of Khosrau the Second, plunged Sassanid into a full scale civil war. That was how the empire fell. The remaining generals were striking out in all directions acting like warlords. One of the peoples that they attacked were the Arabs. The problem was that in it's weak state, the Sassanian Empire wasn't prepared for a counter attack, and the Persians eventually lost.

The Arabs did go to war with the Byzantine Empire after defeating the Sassanian threat and coverting most Persians, but they didn't win. Thanks to a great military and greek fire, Constantinople was never taken, and the Byzantine continued on to it's "Golden Age" in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries under Macedonia.

Actually, maybe Roach can settle this one, being a history prof.

Seaver · 09-18-2006, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Do you mean that they were fighting a holy war? I'm confused by your usage of the word hallow.

Mistype, supposed to be hollow.

Willravel · 09-18-2006, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Mistype, supposed to be hollow.

I do agree with that aswell, then. Their wars could have easily led to the destruction of both empires.

docbungle · 09-18-2006, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

We don't need less comments on Islam, we need more of it.

I agree with Ustwo on this and this alone. There needs to be a hell of a lot more dialogue than there is currently. Stop talking about each other and start talking with each other.

Elphaba · 09-18-2006, 05:58 PM

Doc has great wisdom.

Ustwo · 09-18-2006, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

I agree with Ustwo on this and this alone. There needs to be a hell of a lot more dialogue than there is currently. Stop talking about each other and start talking with each other.

Of course there is that whole 'talk about islam in any negative way and we kill you' mentality to deal with first.

It tends to stifle a dialog.

docbungle · 09-18-2006, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Of course there is that whole 'talk about islam in any negative way and we kill you' mentality to deal with first.

It tends to stifle a dialog.

Well, I just don't think that 'not talking to people' is a very intelligent way to figure anything out. I see it as immature and counterproductive. It's what children do when they don't get dessert.

I'm not implying in any way whatsoever that these extremists are good people. Or even that they are the ones that we sholud be talking to. But the Islam community as a whole. You know, try and get some support from within that mindset somewhere, get some trust. If anyone can help with this type of situation, it is Islamists themselves.

I mean, everyone watches the news. They know what is being said about them. And even normal, peacefull muslims (the ones that could help, if they wanted) see the light in which we (or our press) view them. I can understand why they don't jump at the chance to take a stand with the U.S. against their violent brethren

Ustwo · 09-18-2006, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

I mean, everyone watches the news. They know what is being said about them. And even normal, peacefull muslims (the ones that could help, if they wanted) see the light in which we (or our press) view them. I can understand why they don't jump at the chance to take a stand with the U.S. against their violent brethren

Had they done so to start then we wouldn't have had such views. There are plenty of friendly outlets for them to speak their minds, yet most are silent. Some I'm sure are intimidated by their murderous brethren, but we see little from them even in countries where they should be safe to speak their mind.

I know enough peaceful muslims to know that while they are not willing to die as terrorists, they support the idea behind it. These were very highly educated muslims, from all over the mideast who I worked with closely for 3 years. They were very nice, but I also saw their reactions to 9/11, and heard what they thought of israel. Its here that I decided that there really was no hope for peace until there was a very large pile of bodies. If I was with some of the best educated, with people who spent years in the US and other western nations, some for over 10 years, and yet they still felt this way, I had to despair as to what the average citizen of their nations thought.

You won’t see muslim outrage over terrorism because they are not upset by it, unlike a cartoon or a pope quoting a guy dead for 600 years, thats worth being outraged over.

docbungle · 09-18-2006, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You won’t see muslim outrage over terrorism because they are not upset by it, unlike a cartoon or a pope quoting a guy dead for 600 years, thats worth being outraged over.

I do see the irony you point out here. There is no way to not see it.

And I agree with you also that, as a whole, there does not seem to be "outrage" in the muslim community regarding terrorist acts, but more a sense of "disagreement" with terrorism. Which is a far cry from outrage.

But I don't think killing them all is the answer (extreme understatement)! Some sort of an attempt should be made at real communication. Whether or not we believe they deserve communication with us is moot. The only other alternative is a continuous back and forth of escalating violence.

Charlatan · 09-19-2006, 07:04 AM

Interestingly there are moderate Muslim leaders calling for more "rationalism" to brought to the religion.

There were quotes from the heads of state from Brunei and Malaysia today that pretty much agreed with what the Pope was saying, if not how it was being said.

Ustwo · 09-19-2006, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Interestingly there are moderate Muslim leaders calling for more "rationalism" to brought to the religion.

There were quotes from the heads of state from Brunei and Malaysia today that pretty much agreed with what the Pope was saying, if not how it was being said.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: I hereby declare that this sinister regime [Israel] is the banner of Satan. It is the banner of the Great Satan. All it does is to implement the orders of the criminal America and England. They think that the peoples are the same as they were 100 years ago. They are not aware that things have changed in the world. Today, all the peoples have awoken. The Iranian people is the standard-bearer of this awakening for all the peoples. As we can see, from the southernmost point in South America to the easternmost point in Asia, all the people are shouting a single cry. With placards in their hands and clenched fists, they shout: Death to Israel.

Crowd: Death to Israel.

Quote:

Tripoli - The elder son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has called on Pope Benedict XVI to convert to Islam immediately, dismissing last week’s apology from the pontiff for offending Muslims.

“If this person were really someone reasonable, he would not agree to remain at his post one minute, but would convert to Islam immediately,” Mohammed Gaddafi told an awards ceremony on Monday evening for an international competition to memorise the Qur’an.

“We say to the pope - whether you apologise or not is irrelevant, as apologies make no difference to us.”

Gaddafi junior also hit out at “those Muslims who look for comfort in the words of a non-Muslim”.

He said Muslims “should not look for charity from the infidel... but should fight Islam’s enemies who attack the faith and the Prophet Muhammad”.

Quote:

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said Benedict’s expression of regret was acceptable. Malaysia — which chairs the world’s largest Muslim bloc, the Organization of the Islamic Conference — had demanded the pope offer a full apology and retract what he said.

“I think we can accept it and we hope there are no more statements that can anger the Muslims,” Abdullah told Malaysian journalists late Monday in New York, where he is attending the U.N. General Assembly. His comments came after he met with President Bush, who told the Malaysian leader he believed that Benedict was sincere in apologizing.

In Turkey, however, protesters said Benedict must make full amends before a planned November trip that would be his papacy’s first visit to a Muslim nation. “Either apologize, or do not come,” read a banner carried by a group of demonstrators from a religious workers’ union.

Iraq’s parliament also rejected Benedict’s explanation of his remarks, saying it was insufficiently clear. The parliament “demands the pope take practical steps to restore respect to the Islamic world and its religion, and a clear-cut apology for what he said,” lawmakers said in a statement read at a press conference.

The top Muslim clergyman in the Palestinian territories similarly demanded that Benedict offer a “clear apology.” The mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Hussein, urged Palestinians to halt attacks on churches in the territories, but held the pontiff responsible for the outpouring of anger.

“So far, we consider the apology of the Vatican Pope insufficient,” Hussein told reporters. “We firmly ask the Vatican Pope to offer a personal, public and clear apology to the 1.5 billion Muslims in this world.”

Sorry to host this thread, but this is the face of islam today.

roachboy · 09-19-2006, 07:44 AM

willravel, seaver: can't really help you gentlemen. history is big and no-one knows all of it.

ustwo:

Quote:

this is the face of islam today.

you cannot possibly be serious.
perhaps in your racist fantasy world, it is.
in the big empirical world that other folk know about, yours is a ludicrous position.
it has nothing to do with the empirical world and everything to do with the ways in which conservative media uses racism to sell the bush administration.
works for you, apparently.

repellent stuff, ustwo. truly repellent.

Charlatan · 09-19-2006, 02:26 PM

Ustwo... perhaps if you had said, "This is one of the faces of Islam".

Saying it is the face if Islam is as ignorant as saying Pat Robertson is the face of Christanity.

You are being entirely facile in your world and it's really disturbing. I expect more from you.

It seems to me that Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi accepts the Pope's apology. I am not sure what your point is...

As for where Badawi stands, his speech last July seems pretty clear to me: LINK

Quote:

The concept of creativity, innovation, rationalization and renewal is in fact central to the teachings of Islam. The text of the holy Qur’an contains many verses which request humans to use his or her intellect, to ponder, to think and to know. Critical and analytical thinking is encouraged and exhorted in Islam. The concept of ijtihad teaches Muslims to make efforts to interpret the religious texts in accordance with the realities of the existing times. For instance, a great Islamic scholar, Muhammad Abduh grappled with the issue of modernity and the need for change from the perspective of Islam. He concluded that the enlightened Muslims are those who are able to harmonize the revelations of the holy Qur’an and the traditions of the holy Prophet Muhammad on the one hand, and human reasoning and science on the other hand. The truth is that Islam is neither monolithic nor impervious to change. There should be no doubt that Islam and modernity are compatible, not inherently incompatible.

Read the whole speech. He may not make the Western news but he is the leader of one of the biggest national populations of Muslims.

Baraka_Guru · 09-19-2006, 05:44 PM

Approximately 2 out of 5 Americans approve of the job George W. Bush is doing. Is he the face of America? Yes, it could be argued, but is he the heart of America?

The same effect applies to anything that receives a high profile. Falsehoods run rampant if you only look on the surface of things. I've never looked to the media to teach me about anything. Why would I have them teach me about Islam?

Ustwo · 09-19-2006, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Ustwo... perhaps if you had said, "This is one of the faces of Islam".

Saying it is the face if Islam is as ignorant as saying Pat Robertson is the face of Christanity.

You are being entirely facile in your world and it's really disturbing. I expect more from you.

It seems to me that Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi accepts the Pope's apology. I am not sure what your point is...

As for where Badawi stands, his speech last July seems pretty clear to me: LINK

Read the whole speech. He may not make the Western news but he is the leader of one of the biggest national populations of Muslims.

Hey great, one of the many muslim nations isn't ruled by fanatics, we should celibrate!

I'm sorry Charlatan but the Pat Robertson comparison is poor. Pat Robertson is just a guy, he even has people who follow him, but until they start killing people at his bidding, burning mosques, blowing themselves up, that sort of thing while the rest of Christindom sits idle its a false one.

LOOK around the world, look at was these muslims leaders as a whole say look at what they want their people to do, look at what they allow and then tell me.

Robertson says we should kill Chavez and much of the country and I'm sure Europe thought it was assinine, and said so. The president of Iran says 'Death to Israel' and they chant right along.

Willravel · 09-19-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Hey great, one of the many muslim nations isn't ruled by fanatics, we should celibrate!

I'm sorry Charlatan but the Pat Robertson comparison is poor. Pat Robertson is just a guy, he even has people who follow him, but until they start killing people at his bidding, burning mosques, blowing themselves up, that sort of thing while the rest of Christindom sits idle its a false one.

LOOK around the world, look at was these muslims leaders as a whole say look at what they want their people to do, look at what they allow and then tell me.

Robertson says we should kill Chavez and much of the country and I'm sure Europe thought it was assinine, and said so. The president of Iran says 'Death to Israel' and they chant right along.

You must know enough aboust sociology and anthropology to understand that a population in poverty acts differently than a population with wealth. I will bet you $5000 that if the US was in the same political, economic, and sociological situation we see in the Middle East, we would see some sort of massive group think led by anyone charismatic enough to catch everyone's ear. As we've seen time and time again in history, the lodest voice is often the most radical voice.

Islam itself is a wonderful faith that helps people understand themselves and the world around them, just like any other religon - yes, even scientology can help people to live happier lives. How in God's name do I know this? Well there are muslims in my very city! I'm even friends with several!!! Do you know what they communicate to me? Not all Muslims are radical. In fact, they are liberal peaceniks just like I am. They have no interest in hurting anyone, because they recognize that to hurt someone because of intolerance is hypocritical. Even with the intolerance of Islam you continually post, I doubt they'd do anything more to you than dislike you. They wake up, eat breakfast, kiss their kids goodbye, work hard, go home, spend time with their families, and go to sleep like everyone else.

I strongly suggest you go to a mosque and ask some questions. Keep an open mind, and you might just learn something about these people you so quickly judge.

aberkok · 09-19-2006, 07:52 PM

So I'm just wondering, Ustwo, where do you want to go with this? What are you trying to make us see here?

Are you suggesting we stop being friends with Muslims? Not allow them into our country? Kill them all? If we take what you are saying as the truth, what would you have us do?

aKula · 09-19-2006, 08:04 PM

Here's the text of the lecture if anyone is interested. I'll paste the relevant part here in the thread.
http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.or...lo.asp?c=94807

Quote:

This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the three Laws: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself - which, in the context of the issue of faith and reason, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion. It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threaten. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without decending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death....

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: In the beginning was the λόγoς. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: Come over to Macedonia and help us! (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a distillation of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

Looking at the lecture as a whole it is not some outrageous attack on Islam rather an analysis of theological issues to do with rationality. Though I do see why people may find it offensive and call for an apology. I think we can agree that the responses to this lecture calling for violence are, however, completely asinine. I'll leave the debate over the general beliefs and attitudes of Islam toward the west to others.

Elphaba · 09-19-2006, 08:19 PM

Thank you, akula. I made assumptions based only on what I saw quoted in my news sources. Your post gives the context needed to gain some understanding.

ubertuber · 09-20-2006, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You must know enough aboust sociology and anthropology to understand that a population in poverty acts differently than a population with wealth. I will bet you $5000 that if the US was in the same political, economic, and sociological situation we see in the Middle East, we would see some sort of massive group think led by anyone charismatic enough to catch everyone's ear. As we've seen time and time again in history, the lodest voice is often the most radical voice.

Uh... Are you trying to avoid the Godwin thing, because there are plenty of examples of Western and even Christian nations behaving that way in times of social and economic crisis. That particular sociological mechanism transcends culture, religion, and ethinicity. I'd bet you could find examples of it on every continent save Antarctica.

Willravel · 09-20-2006, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Uh... Are you trying to avoid the Godwin thing, because there are plenty of examples of Western and even Christian nations behaving that way in times of social and economic crisis. That particular sociological mechanism transcends culture, religion, and ethinicity. I'd bet you could find examples of it on every continent save Antarctica.

Yeah, I've overused the Nazi comparison lately. I was thinking about the Inquisition but certian people don't think it exiasted (and people call me a conspiracy nut), and I didn't want to threadjack. Being vague gives me the oportunity to bring up any case of religous zealotism in history.

09-18-2006, 10:52 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	We don't need less comments on Islam, we need more of it. The truth shall set you free after all. As long as we keep blaming ourselves and keeping our heads in the sand its going to get worse not better. The really ironic thing is that it was a Byzantine emperor who said it and the Pope won't be going to turkey unless he offers an offical appology (abasement). Now I'm sure you all took enough history to see the irony. As a side note, we all owe a debt of thanks to the Byzanties who held off the muslim invasion of Europe for centuries, long enough to regain the strength to resist the invasion after the fall of Constantinople. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-18-2006, 11:02 AM	#3 (permalink)
ironman Smithers, release the hounds Location: Guatemala, Guatemala	Problem is not Islam, but islamic extremists. I know first hand that most muslims are peacefull, good persons, but these bastards give the whole Islam a bad name. __________________ If I agreed with you we´d both be wrong

09-18-2006, 12:37 PM	#6 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Ironman and Superbelt..I agree completely and made a similar observation in another discussion that Mojo refuted by rewriting history. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=35 __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-18-2006, 12:39 PM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The current state of terrorism has nothing to do with Muhammed and everything to do with the desperate and extreemist responses by Middle Eastern forces to strategic socioeconomic powerplays by the US and the UK. The pope was simply repeating old world religous bigotry; he slipped and let a little hate out. It's not uncommon for religous leaders to be somewhat defensive of their religon and somewhat offended by other religons. As was stated by Superbelt, many religons have been spread through violence and even "evil", including Christianity and Islam. It's an unfortunate byproduct of people being able to wield the power of the minds of those who are devoted to faith. The thing is, singling out a religon for being violent is like singling out a single tree for being green, and that singling out is usually done by a mamber of another religon. That's called religous bigotry. Last edited by Willravel; 09-18-2006 at 12:44 PM.. Reason: simpy to simply

09-18-2006, 01:00 PM	#8 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Rewriting history now? I didn't know that Papal records and studies by historians and the BBC the world over equated as my lowly self rewriting history. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 09-18-2006 at 01:11 PM..

09-18-2006, 01:37 PM	#11 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	An affront of this magnitude by a pontiff is extremely rare, and I can't imagine why this pope would choose to make a statement such as this. His "apology" that he didn't believe the comments himself, appeased no one. If he didn't believe it, why make the statement at all? I believe Will is correct that some religious bigotry slipped out. I believe he will need to do more to mend the damage.

09-18-2006, 03:24 PM	#18 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Ok Wil, here's what was going on in reality. The Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire were at war for generations at this point. They fought themselves hallow basically. Lo and behold the religion of peace starts declaring war with both empires, the Sassanid crumbling first. Then the slow conquest of Anatolia followed. Neither empire delt with the Arabian Penninsula prior, only in trade. To claim it was in self defense to take down the two powerful empires in the region is ubsurd. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

09-18-2006, 05:58 PM	#24 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Doc has great wisdom.

09-19-2006, 07:04 AM	#29 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Interestingly there are moderate Muslim leaders calling for more "rationalism" to brought to the religion. There were quotes from the heads of state from Brunei and Malaysia today that pretty much agreed with what the Pope was saying, if not how it was being said. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-19-2006, 05:44 PM	#33 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Approximately 2 out of 5 Americans approve of the job George W. Bush is doing. Is he the face of America? Yes, it could be argued, but is he the heart of America? The same effect applies to anything that receives a high profile. Falsehoods run rampant if you only look on the surface of things. I've never looked to the media to teach me about anything. Why would I have them teach me about Islam? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-19-2006 at 05:47 PM..

09-19-2006, 07:52 PM	#36 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	So I'm just wondering, Ustwo, where do you want to go with this? What are you trying to make us see here? Are you suggesting we stop being friends with Muslims? Not allow them into our country? Kill them all? If we take what you are saying as the truth, what would you have us do? __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

09-19-2006, 08:19 PM	#38 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Thank you, akula. I made assumptions based only on what I saw quoted in my news sources. Your post gives the context needed to gain some understanding.